Why Baldur's Gate sucks?

[aboyd]

Just the fact that we have this kind of battles that are won by grinding and brute force instead of an intelligent and balanced choice of opponents shows that RTwP is not meant for intelligent fights were strategic thinking is more important than being able to watch dozens of foes in a short period of time.

Disagree. It's just a different type of intelligent fight with strategic thinking. I think my own personal impression of the difference between TB and RTwP is that TB feels like chess, and RTwP feels like a battlefield simulator. One is more exacting in some cases (I'm thinking of good TB implementations, like ToEE), but I don't always want more exacting.

I was perfectly capable of doing ambushes, traps, ranged fire, and other strategic goodies in BG1 and BG2. In fact, because I sometimes play on a harder setting, I very often had to. For example, I have never been able to handle Nalia's Umber Hulks without some kind of carefully planned & executed attack.

About the only thing I miss in BG is that there is no "danger circle" showing the attack of opportunity range for each creature. But again, that starts to feel like moving chess pieces around, and I don't always want that. I'm sure I'll enjoy the implementation in AoD.

If you like the chaos and trill of action combat then play action rpgs but don't say that TB can be replaced by RTwP.

I wouldn't say that you can replace TB with RTwP, but then you weren't directing your comment to me. However, I also wouldn't say that TB is superior or even preferable. In my mind, TB with queued actions is equally as good as RTwP. However, I've never seen a good TBwQA (lots of pure TB, but never a queue), whereas the BG series has what I think is pretty good RTwP.

Hmm. Maybe I would say that replacing TB with RTwP would be possible. Now that I think about it, if Beth had said that F3 would use a RTwP system that closely mirrored BG2 (I'm thinking of all the auto-pause options), I probably would have shrugged it off. It's just preference.

 

[Naked Ninja]

I have thoroughly enjoyed turn based games in the past, but that doesn't mean I'm turning it into a religion. Its not -necessary-, its just one of the possible ways to handle combat.

You've missed the point. The 6 seconds isn't for issueing commands. The 6 seconds is for evaluating the situation immediately after your commands fire.1 opponent or 30, it's enough. Pause the game, tell your fighters to charge in or drink potions, mages to hurl some AoE or buffs...unpause...evaluate situation, fighters surrounded and taking damage, AoE killed a mass off to the left...pause, decide actions based on evaluated scenario.

You don't give commands in real time. You evaluate the situation. 6 seconds is more than enough time.

Grinding, brute force battles in BG show nothing about the system, only that designers have chosen to create "grind" situations.

 

[Elwro]

An aspect of BG's RTwP I didn't like was that you never knew when your mage would cast the spell you've ordered him to cast. It could've been one second, it could've been three seconds... Still, high-level spell battles were fun.

 

[JrK]

About the only thing I miss in BG is that there is no "danger circle" showing the attack of opportunity range for each creature.

That's because there are no AoO's in 2nd edition.

An aspect of BG's RTwP I didn't like was that you never knew when your mage would cast the spell you've ordered him to cast. It could've been one second, it could've been three seconds... Still, high-level spell battles were fun.

Yes you could. A mage can cast every six seconds, and it takes 0.6 seconds to cast a spell per spell casting duration thingymabob that's in the description. In any case I've never had trouble with the timing.

 

[Elwro]

Yes you could. A mage can cast every six seconds, and it takes 0.6 seconds to cast a spell per spell casting duration thingymabob that's in the description. In any case I've never had trouble with the timing.

Well, I'm pretty sure you never know if his former 6 second action just ended (in which case he starts to cast the spell rightaway), or if he's still in the middle of it.

 

[JoKa]

care to elaborate on those liberties? apart from a few spells i'm not aware of too much source-fudging...

Being able to increase stats as you level up and being able to change classes at will. Plus, the tattoos.

sorry, mistook your statement for being about the setting, not about the system. but you're right about the tatoos, afaik.

 

[aboyd]

Yes you could. A mage can cast every six seconds, and it takes 0.6 seconds to cast a spell per spell casting duration thingymabob that's in the description. In any case I've never had trouble with the timing.

Well, I'm pretty sure you never know if his former 6 second action just ended (in which case he starts to cast the spell rightaway), or if he's still in the middle of it.

Game options -> autopause -> pause on spell cast

 

[aboyd]

In BG2 i had some good mage fights where i had to put all my effort into winning but most fights are chaotic and it's very hard to maintain a formation and take advantage of position. The chaos of real time isn't welcome in a thinking game.

I find the chaos engages my brain more. It's a nice challenge. Of course, I pause a lot. If we're talking about full RT without pause, I would agree with you -- too chaotic and sloppy. But in BG, where I can pause with about 10 different types of triggers, it's a happy medium in my opinion.

You play in turns and see what your opponent is doing before acting. There's no point on going RTwP. Why would anyone want this? If combat is slow or boring it's because fights aren't challenging enough.

You see things very differently. I want it just because I want it. Perhaps the electrical synapses in my brain trigger on different things, releasing chemicals that give me positive feedback, thus reinforcing my desire to play differently. Who knows? The question is, why is it so difficult to understand that people have different tastes? It seems very insular to assume everyone thinks similarly.

Anyway, making TB more challenging isn't going to fix complaints of it being slow or boring. That will only make it more tedious, as attacks and defensive measures would need to be even more exact in order to overcome the increased challenge -- narrowing the appeal down to Rain Man, and kids with Asperger's.

What would make me stop complaining about TB being slow or boring would be if I didn't have to tell my fighter to swing his damn sword every turn. He swung before, the bad guy ain't dead, why the hell can't he keep swinging without my micromanagement? If my wizard has 3 good spells and I know I'm going to use them all, why can't I tell the game "use these 3 in this order, then get back to me" and let it run? I don't want to babysit these little avatars. Having to manually, repeatedly tell my character "hit him again... hit him again... aaandd hit him again..." is dull as rocks. It's a victory for monotony. That's what bugs me about TB. Doubly so, because it doesn't have to be that way. Evolve the sacred TB with some usability features, and more will come back to it.

 

[elander_]

I find the chaos engages my brain more. It's a nice challenge. Of course, I pause a lot. If we're talking about full RT without pause, I would agree with you -- too chaotic and sloppy. But in BG, where I can pause with about 10 different types of triggers, it's a happy medium in my opinion.

Strategic chaos is one thing and interface chaos is another. Interface chaos in BG2 means you repeat battles unnecessarily because you didn't know if your wizard was able to successfully strike a spell or if it fizzled or what? Ok so this may be tagged to the way RTwP was made in BG2 and feedback isn't done properly. But this is a problem that is unavoidable when you play a RTwP game.

The 6 secs argument used by NN doesn't hold because when you have too many enemies in a fight you start loosing track of what is going on and that is a problem of RTwP. To solve this problem you have to introduce some sort auto-pause but then the game becomes something similar to a TB game, but then you are agreeing with my argument.

What would make me stop complaining about TB being slow or boring would be if I didn't have to tell my fighter to swing his damn sword every turn. He swung before, the bad guy ain't dead, why the hell can't he keep swinging without my micromanagement?

When you play a good and challenging TB game you tolerate that. That's how i learned to enjoy good TB games. The slow playing was also uninviting for me a start. I'm not saying it is fun but i tolerate it because good TB games offer fine control which is essential in challenging scenarios.

If my wizard has 3 good spells and I know I'm going to use them all, why can't I tell the game "use these 3 in this order, then get back to me" and let it run? I don't want to babysit these little avatars. Having to manually, repeatedly tell my character "hit him again... hit him again... aaandd hit him again..." is dull as rocks. It's a victory for monotony. That's what bugs me about TB. Doubly so, because it doesn't have to be that way. Evolve the sacred TB with some usability features, and more will come back to it.

TB games have already evolved with usability features. It's just that people are too much brain washed by the hype to try good TB games. Laser Squad Nemesis gives you some freedom to avoid micro managing too much. You have 6 to 8 marines and npcs move one by one but it's fast and we can still replay their moves to see what they have done. Damn the game even tutors you while playing and chooses the best action for you, if you are still a rookie.

The bots behave in a clever and cunning way and are capable of ambushing the the player and retreat to get healed or when their formation is broken. They take advantage of the terrain and use cover. They can even use devices to activate traps. The game enters TB mode immediately in the case of ambushes and it would be unpractical to use RTwP system.

When you think a map doesn't have any more challenges you can use the auto-resolve option and you will finish it this way. That's one way to deal with the slow factor. So this is never boring unless you want to continue playing when you already won for sure. The other way is to give orders to your marines and they will act on their own, even react to ambushes automatically. You only have to place them.

There you have a modern TB game that has received barrels of gameplay awards from the creator of XCom but nobody gives a fuck about it or bother to play it when they compare RTwP to TB combat:
http://www.lasersquadnemesis.com/Reviews.htm

 

[aboyd]

Interface chaos in BG2 means you repeat battles unnecessarily because you didn't know if your wizard was able to successfully strike a spell or if it fizzled or what? Ok so this may be tagged to the way RTwP was made in BG2 and feedback isn't done properly. But this is a problem that is unavoidable when you play a RTwP game.

I never had this problem in the BG series. Maybe we play differently. I always set all the verbose options, including subtitles. I always see/hear feedback about the state of a spell.

The 6 secs argument used by NN doesn't hold because when you have too many enemies in a fight you start loosing track of what is going on and that is a problem of RTwP.

Again, you're stating a personal preference. You prefer to control the battle at a micromanagement level. I prefer to allow the chaos to be part of the game. It is not a flaw to lose track in a large battle. Or more precisely, it is not a flaw to me so long as I can pause at any point.

When you play a good and challenging TB game you tolerate that. That's how i learned to enjoy good TB games. The slow playing was also uninviting for me a start. I'm not saying it is fun but i tolerate it because good TB games offer fine control which is essential in challenging scenarios.

"Tolerate not fun gameplay" is not a good selling point for TB. But I don't mean to take pot-shots at your argument -- I understand what you're doing. You've developed a preference, and you're willing to endure some imperfection to get the gameplay you desire. That's cool. I just flip that around for myself -- I understand that RTwP isn't perfect, but I'm willing to endure some imperfection to get the gameplay I desire.

At this point, I think we have an understanding. There's probably not much more to say.

 

[Elwro]

Game options -> autopause -> pause on spell cast

Whoops. OK then :wink:

 

[elander_]

I never had this problem in the BG series. Maybe we play differently. I always set all the verbose options, including subtitles. I always see/hear feedback about the state of a spell.

I'm sure it must be very hard to follow a battle when you have say 12 orcs, plus 2 magic casters and half a dozen of fighters, archers in a single battle. The messages window will be filled with several pages of text in seconds which makes it very annoying to track what is going on. BG2 has some interesting auto-pause choices like that pause on spell cast option, but i ended up with slower combats than playing ToEE with the same number of foes on a single battle. If we had better triggers and when the game is in pause mode we were able to continue playing in TB (turning it off at our discretion) it would be a much better solution and would solve the low tolerance RTwP players have with micro-management.

Again, you're stating a personal preference. You prefer to control the battle at a micromanagement level. I prefer to allow the chaos to be part of the game. It is not a flaw to lose track in a large battle. Or more precisely, it is not a flaw to me so long as I can pause at any point.

Like i said i have no problem with chaos in strategy, in fact, i welcome it. It's the interface we are talking about and chaos within the interface is not welcome.

I don't agree that removing micro-management makes a strategy game better. I played rpgs where quests require the player fight in a very specific way. Like for example a quest where we have to isolate an enemy from a fighting and keep him immobilized until he surrenders. Removing micro-management removes a lot of opportunities for quests and to make combat close, personal and interesting.

The problem with it is when you don't have a choice unless to play at the micro-management level all the time. Modern TB games have ways to reduce this problem so maybe a solution to your problem already exists that you can tolerate.

At this point, I think we have an understanding. There's probably not much more to say.

We can certainly agree on that. That is what im trying to say here. TB and RTwP address different issues, preferences and tolerances and both have advantages and disadvantages. It's a mistake to compare both and say that RTwP can replace TB.

Here's an interesting thread for those guys who think RTwP is the latest greatest thing and TB is old:
http://nwn2forums.bioware.com/forums/vi ... =109&sp=15

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

It's not just rpgs. It's also strategy games, adventure games that used to be most puzzle gameplay and other genres. Every kind of niche gameplay is being taken away from games and being replaced by gameplay mechanincs preferred by mainstream and casual players.

Bollocks. There might be a certain trend to try to make things more accessible to a wider audience*(not a bad thing by definition, btw), and gross generalizations aside , it's not surprising considering production costs going thru the roof. But: Similar design approaches and design focuses have been around ever since day one, and toying arround with ideas, incorporating them into something new, that's how all the games you're heralding as the holy grails of gaming (at this point in time!) came to be in the first place. Don't try to turn everything into rigid rules of kinds, that's all I said, and anybody with a love for gaming should see what seriously broken an attitude that really is. You're all making a case for repetition. Generic cookie cutters and "Me, too!" games up yer butt.


Ironically, even most "indie" companies seem to be very much into "Me, too!!!1" games, as far as I can tell. Meaning that: Even catering to a supposedly niche does go hand in hand with the much despised concept of "selling out to an audience". I don't see the difference at all. You know why? It's because there isn't any. But hey, gotta keep paying the bills, so who's to blame?! Since I'm keeping a close eye on all things adventure myself: The numbers of Adventure Games™ (capital A, capital G indeed!) trying to cash in on the success of ten+ years old games are pretty telling. "Don't fix what ain't broken!" they say. Grossest misconception ever.

* Is that just me? Just about every time somebody yells "mainstream" in the context of geeky video gaming, an industry that's as inbred as they come (games from young males made for males their age), I can't help it but chuckle. Safe for a few selected products (Mammoth Franchise XY, The Sims, bloody Myth, WOW, Wii) , there has hardly ever been anything made even remotedly resembling a true mass phenomenon of truly large-scale. And even those are like, ultra-rare. Aside from that, "mainstream" doesn't say anything about quality or lack thereof. And your bloody definitions and bloody tighter than your bloody ass rules for "RPG™" are no more right than anybody else's.

I don't agree that removing micro-management makes a strategy game better.

Likewise, even real-time combat can have plenty micro-management, meaning that even if the design doesn't allow you to ponder about something as long as you want, it can still be there. It's nothing exclusive to "turn-based" whatever. Wether you like it or not, the way a fight in "Warcraft 3" enfolds - how you have to make split-second decisions and keep control of your heroes and units in real-time all along - that's what makes it the game it is. I'm not saying it's the same kind of micro-management as in game whatever, but if you followed my last sentence you might get the drift.

 

[elander_]

Yes but it's different. If it makes you understand better make fast decisions requires and different way of thinking and thus a different challenge and if you agree with me that we are talking about different types of mind challenges then there's no reason to put the two on the same plate. We are better with both and there's more variety. More power to us gamers. Thats the reason to keep TB.

Short answer because i don't have too much time to post.

 

[Mr Happy]

What would make me stop complaining about TB being slow or boring would be if I didn't have to tell my fighter to swing his damn sword every turn. He swung before, the bad guy ain't dead, why the hell can't he keep swinging without my micromanagement? If my wizard has 3 good spells and I know I'm going to use them all, why can't I tell the game "use these 3 in this order, then get back to me" and let it run? I don't want to babysit these little avatars. Having to manually, repeatedly tell my character "hit him again... hit him again... aaandd hit him again..." is dull as rocks. It's a victory for monotony. That's what bugs me about TB. Doubly so, because it doesn't have to be that way. Evolve the sacred TB with some usability features, and more will come back to it.

Really? That's one of my problems (I have several, I might expand on those later) with RtwP. I don't like the "click and forget" nature of it, it feels so passive, and lacks immeadiacy. The battle goes on, whether you participate or not. Just using the same attack for several turns/rounds/phases/attacks/whatever is probably boring no matter the system; if that happens a lot, you should probably add some other factors to consider.

 

[aboyd]

Which is just further proof that we are all wired differently, and trying to declare either mode superior is futile.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

If it makes you understand better make fast decisions requires and different way of thinking and thus a different challenge and if you agree with me that we are talking about different types of mind challenges

Oh, I agree! Sorry if it came off that way, but I wasn't trying to make it sound any different. And then there's turn-based and turn-based. X-Com. Jagged Alliance. Heroes Of Might&Magic. Fallout. All playing out drastically different. Real-time, turn-based, whatever necessary, I'd rather see such design decisions being based on idea and vision rather than strict rules and formulas, and that's all.

Pathfinding issues aside, I found the design of BGs combat pretty much ace. Looked and acted as fluid as real-time, but underneath it wasn't really, and I was giving all the fancy options to alter the course of battle at my own leisure on top of that. Apparentally around these parts of the www, I appear to belong to a minority. Which is okay in the end. We can't all like the same things. That'd be Snoozeville. Speaking of which, never warmed up to combat in NWN. At least not when playing alone. Far too passive an experience for me.

What I find funny though are those cases in which supposed "market realities" make developers/publishers shy away from turn-based combat or anything resembling it. You know why? I know of the reputation of this series around 'ere, but it needs to be said regardless: For the bulk of the gameplay, Final Fantasy (GASP!) and its countless offsprings and epigones have been consisting of countless, totally random turn-based combat all along. And last time I checked, some of these belong to the most commercially successful video games around. Okay, those battles might not be Panzer General (and neither is Fallout, heh), but especially the boss battles - another overused, bonafide design cliché trump card that apparentally needs to be played in every game and then some, while we're at it - can play out pretty interesting. Not sure though, Square seem to have altered combat for FFXII? Not that it matters, just saying.

 

[elander_]

"Pathfinding issues aside, I found the design of BGs combat pretty much ace."

For a RTwP game it's strength is in the options available for auto-pause. BG2 has some limitations even considering it's supposed to appeal to a different audience. You can't monitor your opponents and companions selectively for example. In a huge battle i don't want to pause the game for every orc that hits one of my characters or for every mephit that casts a spell. I want to do this for the "bosses" or those individuals that i should pay more attention. We tell the game to auto-pause when someone does a specific action but always when the action has finished and not when that action is starting or when the player is about to gets a chance to act (that is he is not performing some action). Other important options that are missing like spell failure.

 

[aboyd]

elander_, I'm going off the top of my head here, but isn't it true that if you set BG to autopause on spell cast, it ALSO pauses on spell failure? The "pause on spell cast" apparently actually works like a "pause when done with spell in any way" feature. Of course, I could be misremembering.

 

[elander_]

I just tried that with a previous save and it only pauses when the spell succeeds. The spell failure pause would have been most useful.